As the kind of guy who always notices a slight mistake three seconds after hitting the "post" or "submit" button, the lack of an edit feature really does bother me.

In the case of somebody's opinion on the game changes, it would be better if, instead of the person editing the previous review, that person would write a second review.

Also, reviews should be dated and should specify which version they apply to.

Editing and deletion of reviews should only happen if there is something wrong with the review itself, and in the case of an update changing the game, the original text should be left intact; only add a note to the effect "an update fixes this issue".

it is impossible to write a second review.
Also sometimes there is no reason to left the original review intact.
I really don't understand why the only store that got suck review system is gog.

Maybe it should be fixed to allow writing a second review.

Also, unless the review was false at the time or is problematic in another way (like being offensive or containing personal information), there is no reason to delete it, and a good reason to keep it up; some people are interested in knowing what the game was like at that point in the past, and what the initial reaction to the review was.

Soooo, you want us to stop buying here on GOG or something? :-P I'm fine with the service; if you aren't, you're welcome to shop elsewhere.

ok.. a reason to change the review system:
right now I made a review for Necropolis. I made it because I would like to buy it on release but they promise something (mac version and multiplayer) but they released windows single player only.
I made a 1 star review for that reason...
well, I made a mistake, right now there is the mac version (In several days it was not there, but today I just did not see the symbol of the apple).
I realised that just a moment after my review.... I cannot delete or edit it.
Sure the multiplayer is still missing, and the release for the mac version on gog was not on the same day that it was on steam... but still I wrote something wrong on my review and I cannot delete it or edit it.
That's why I hate the review system on gog... you cannot make a mistake and you cannot even ask them to change the rating (you can only change the review text). You cannot even change the review if the developer fix problems.

I will not open a new ticket just to change the text of my review... I will not lose my time since I cannot even change the rating...

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by finite development resources and prioritization. :) Seriously, there's nothing at all dishonest about it, it was designed a certain way a while back and has not really evolved since then to be more useful. The reviews system is tremendously lacking in just about every way. GOG is more likely to leave it sit and rot as-is for now to wait until they can do a complete redesign of the entire system some time in the future than to divide their limited development resources to making small incremental improvements/tweaks to a system that they know is in great need of a massive revamp and that anything they do to it right now will get replaced eventually when they redesign it.

The same can be said for the forums and various other areas of the site likely. I don't believe there's anything dishonest about it at all. It's more likely to be a matter of prioritization of finite resources and having more projects to allocate people to work on than people to allocate to doing the work.

Unless GOG has publicly stated somewhere that they very intentionally do not permit people to re-edit reviews once they're posted, it would not be my default assumption to assume that it is done this way on purpose, nor that they're out to get anyone. They've most likely just got a lot bigger fish to fry at the moment, and probably for the next 5 years too. :)

I think reviews about movies, books, games, or anything are simply a reflection of the author of the review. In other words, reviews are about the person writing the review, or I might also phrase it as about that person's mood in that moment.

So with my thinking along those lines, a five/five star review simply means the person writing the review is feeling like five/five stars in that moment when they wrote (or posted) the review. A one/five star (or an implied zero/five star) review means the person who wrote the review felt like one/five stars in the moment of writing/speaking.

I really think reviews have nothing to do with any item being written/spoken about other than a focal point for writing/talking about how that person feels (or maybe would like to feel). From everything I've read or listened, it always comes across that way. To me, people are just making sense of the world around them, and to me they have some rather weird perspectives of the world around them in their expectations of a movie, game, book, etc.

Because reviews are pretty much always by a stranger to me, I have no way of valuing their expression. Those people aren't a part of my life and there's no way change that. It would make more sense to me to establish a relationship with people before reading their reviews of life as they see it.

Yeah, generally speaking single reviews from people are generally not terribly useful as someone could love a game to the ends of the earth and rave about it but it is not even a type of game that I personally would ever give the time of day to. I've played some games that have high ratings and people go ape shit over allegedly which I ended up thinking "what the hell is this crap?" and wondering if everyone is completely mentally insane or what. :) A review on its own is one person's perspective as it is at a single instance in time as you say, and that could be influenced by a number of factors including their spouse/partner bitching at them for not taking out the garbage or whatever, we just have no context when reading them as to what the person was feeling at the time and why.

I've seen people give the lowest numerical/star rating to some game just because it didn't contain support for their native language of Swahili or some other non-mainstream language that zero games have ever supported for example. A game not supporting a language that no game has ever supported is totally not even remotely a good reason to rate it as low as possible. That's a bogus useless emotionally dysfunctional rating IMHO, but such types of ratings are out there.

Or maybe the website was under intense pressure during a sale and the person had difficulty completing their purchase or downloading the game, so they have this vengeance chip on their shoulder with "oh yeah, I'll show you!" on their minds and they go give the game a piss rating when they haven't even played it yet and the problem they had that they're having an emotional breakdown and tantrum over had nothing at all to do with the game, the game publisher or developer whatsoever.

I do read some individual reviews (both good and bad, mainly on Steam not here) to get some ideas about what I might expect from a game, and look at the game's aggregate ratings (again usually on Steam and/or Metacritic user ratings) to get a general idea, then couple that with trailers and maybe a bit of gameplay video footage etc. That seems to be most useful.

To me though the least useful ratings tend to be the ones that have the highest amount of emotion conveyed in them, both good and bad. The bad ones because they're usually very negative and sarcastic and fail to be genuinely objective usually, and the good ones because they tend to come off like fanboy praise and equally non-objective. The best reviews IMHO are the ones that convey the absolute least amount of emotional content and the highest number of objective comments with examples. Unfortunately, truly objective reviews seem to be rather uncommon.

If you've ever coded a half decent website you would know that it is pretty trivial to allow a user to edit a post. Unless the website was built by an idiot and they haven't bothered update the coding since it was first created the excuse of "man power" or "priority of resources" is BS.

I'm not saying they are not adding this "feature" because they are trying to do something dodgy or wrong, just that they are being lazy. Considering that GoG is owned by CD Projekt (guys who make Witcher) I'm sure they can afford 1 guy to clean up their website after years of missing features.

You don't know me or what I know or don't know.

Gog is a great website as far as DRM and providing access to vintage games goes. But it is safe to say that just about everything else about it is at best B grade, sometimes worse. Frankly, they'd be better off ditching the whole system and replacing it with something like Disqus.

Do you understand how the english language works? Did you think I specifically meant you personally did not know how to code a website? It's called "Use of pronouns to speak directly to your reader" google it.


Let me rephrase it " anyone who has ever made websites (as a job or otherwise) knows that adding the ability to edit user submitted content, in this case reviews is pretty easy and not something that requires any special effort to do".

If you don't agree than, you don't know what you are talking about.

We can edit our reviews over at Steam, I don't see any reason not to also edit our reviews here, that seems odd for me.